Wall Street Congressman Chooses Occupy Wall Street Instead
With the “We Stand With Gibson”rally over, I thought it would be at least a week before I’d have to point out the Declaration of Independence’s third “self evident truth” is that the purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights of men.
While yesterday’s Americans clearly saw the self evident nature of that truth, too many Americans today cannot. If the “blind” man is a citizen there is a remedy; it’s the law. A visually challenged citizen violates the rights of another and the government, by means of the law, opens his eyes.
But what do we, as free men, do when the blind man is the man charged with securing our rights; when he ignores their violation or declares there is no violation at all?
Meet US Congressman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, representing the Wall Street area of Manhattan, site of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests.
The OWS crowd, gathered to protest perceived violations of their rights by corporations, Wall Street, the Free Market and Capitalism is easily described in two sentences. They have no idea who is truly violating their rights as evidenced by their focus on Markets and not Government. Despite their rhetoric, they care not a whit for “rights” as evidenced by their violating the rights of others to make their points.
Asked by Washington Times opinion writer Kerry Picket about violations of his constituents’ rights, Nadler deflected the issue and ignored the Constitution he swore to uphold. Rather than secure the rights of his constituents, he sided with those violating them. Not what his constituents bargained for when trusting him to look after their interests.
“ … all of us have to live with expressions of democratic demonstrations … “
“The main thing is what’s going on.”
“I think businesses are being damaged a hell of a lot more by our stupid economic policies …”
It seems Nadler prefers Occupy Wall Street over the actual Wall Street. His constituents should “live with [it]” rather than expect him to defend their rights; he cannot differentiate between lawlessness and “ expressions of democratic demonstrations;” he believes the existence of a behavior is sufficient justification for it, and; as a member of Congress responsible for the “stupid economic policies” he admits damage businesses he is uninterested in doing anything about it.
The rest of Picket’s piece is illuminating as it offers specifics on just a few of the legion of rights violations visited on Nadler’s constituents by the OWS crowd. The same violations Nadler dismisses.
If there is an upside, it is that perhaps Americans will wake to the dangers of enabling bad policy and bad politicians. Not that sound policy has no negative consequences for some Americans. Rather, that negative consequences should be reserved for those earning them with their bad behavior. People like Congressman Nadler and the “Wall Street” he really represents.